Eclectic mix is no bad thing
An eclectic mix at FMQs. Not, in itself, a bad thing, of course.
It is an opportunity for MSPs to quiz the first minister on anything and everything.
So herewith a few random thoughts - offering you guys the opportunity to respond in like fashion. Not that you need generally need prompting.
First up, Johann Lamont, standing in for Iain Gray who was attending a funeral.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
Labour's deputy performed creditably, pursuing Alex Salmond over both banking and Local Income Tax.
Why both? Because she averred that investment in Scotland would be less likely should LIT be introduced.
Mr Salmond demurred, suggesting that his proposed measure was popular and worthwhile. At least one of her questions was rather wordy - but it was a good showing, albeit handled by Mr Salmond with his customary skill.
Merger opposition
More broadly, where are we on the Lloyds TSB take-over of HBOS? Not much changed, I would say, despite today's debate at Holyrood instigated by the Liberal Democrats.
At Holyrood, Labour MSPs mostly take their cue from the PM and the Chancellor, effectively supporting the take-over without entirely ruling out alternatives.
Ms Lamont's argument, in essence, was: deal with it. Do what you can, Mr Salmond, as FM - in which category she proposed abandoning LIT.
Behind the scenes, UK Government figures are suggesting that opposition to the merger may act against the interests of HBOS, perhaps even depressing the share price.
They insist further that Lloyds TSB is the only deal on the table - and that HBOS has liquidity problems beyond the capitalisation issue which was dealt with at least in part by the UK Government intervention and which has prompted queries as to whether the merger is now needed.
If not Lloyds TSB, it is further asserted, then the alternative - unacceptable to HBOS - is full-scale nationalisation. Still further, it is argued that both banks back the deal.
Arguments worth heeding, certainly. Salient arguments. However, as I have noted here previously, I believe that Mr Salmond has factored such considerations into the stance he has adopted.
Exert leverage
Even when questioning the merger in his conference speech, he stressed that Lloyds TSB had behaved honourably at all times.
His declared objective, which he has pursued, is to exert leverage upon Lloyds TSB in the likely event that the deal goes ahead.
However, I do not believe that pre-empts him from posing questions about the merger.
At this point, eclecticism kicked in. Annabel Goldie raised a couple of topics arising from the Glenrothes by-election. Understandable but not, perhaps, her most substantive contribution in the chamber.
Then Tavish Scott. He has taken the lead over the issue of HBOS independence - but chose instead to question the FM over the Human Embryology Bill at Westminster and specifically Cardinal Keith O'Brien's criticisms thereof.
The Lib Dem thinking here is that they had already led the HBOS debate in parliament - and that the Cardinal's views merited a liberal response.
'Extreme language'
Cardinal O'Brien had said that the bill might enable the taking of human issue without consent: which he compared to Nazi experimentation.
The Cardinal's specific complaint is disputed by supporters of the bill.
More generally, Mr Scott said the comparison with the Nazi regime was "extreme language" - and not designed to promote sensible debate.
Mr Salmond steered an exceptionally cautious path in response.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Congratulations unionists you've now managed to personally annoy a third nation/government in a month.
Can't read? Can't write? Can't count? What can unionists actually do?
Norway sets the record straight
Sir,
The article "Salmond Slapped down by Norway Minister" in the Daily Mail on 29 October contained several incorrect and misleading statements attributed to Norway's Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre.
Firstly, there is no "growing anger in Norway" over comparisons made between Scotland and Norway during the debate in the United Kingdom against the backdrop of the current global financial crisis.
Secondly, no accusations have been made by Mr Støre against Mr Salmond, as alleged in the article. In the interview, the Foreign Minister merely pointed out factual similarities and differences between the challenges presently faced by Scotland and Norway. Inferring from this that Mr Støre is of the view that Mr Salmond has in any way lied or mislead the public, is simply incorrect.
In short, the Norwegian Foreign Minister did not intend to criticise either side in this debate, which is a domestic political discussion. What he strongly emphasised in the interview with the Daily Mail and which, sadly, was simply omitted from the article, was his sincere appreciation of the warm ongoing relationship between Scotland and Norway.
Yours sincerely,
Bjarne Lindstrøm
Ambassador of Norway
Complain about this comment
"At Holyrood, Labour MSPs mostly take their cue from the PM and the Chancellor"
The key problem for Labour in Scotland. They are trapped into arguing the British case regardless of whether that's in Scotland's interest or not.
Glad to see that Aunty Annabel wasn't asking for an emergency debate on Brand/Ross like her idiot colleagues down south
Complain about this comment
Labour's deputy performed creditably, pursuing Alex Salmond over both banking and Local Income Tax.
Why both? Because she averred that investment in Scotland would be less likely should LIT be introduced.
Mr Salmond demurred, suggesting that his proposed measure was popular and worthwhile. At least one of her questions was rather wordy - but it was a good showing, albeit handled by Mr Salmond with his customary skill.
But what was his answer? "Popular" and "worthwhile", was that it? Surely he didn't just revert to his usual non-answering rhetoric AGAIN?
Removing all taxes completely would be popular but clearly that would be disastrous.
Complain about this comment
While I disagree with the cardinal's anti science stance, perhaps Tavish Scott might suggest something or someone other than the Nazi regime which experimented on live humans without their permission. It is fashionable to criticise anyone who compares some act with the Nazis, but sometimes there are no other comparisons. With regard to the Lloyds / HBOS affair, there seems to be a distinct reluctance for any discussion on the matter by the London government. If as Brown and Darling claim, it is the only option, why will they not hold open discussions with interested parties? Surely Lloyds and indeed HBOS's shareholders would not be unhappy if the public were made aware of all the facts. The reluctance to clarify the situation in it's entirity leads one to the conclusion that perhaps ( Which would not be unusual with Mr Brown ) there is something the government wishes to keep hidden.
Complain about this comment
Ms Lamont could only be an improvement on the Gray man. Fair play to her.
Complain about this comment
#5 pattymkirkwood
Consistent pattern of your posts appearing instantly, so they're clearly not moderated. Might be worth posting something that's clearly against the House Rules, to see if it appears.
Complain about this comment
A lot has been made of the UK raising lots of money to prop up the banks.
I haven't seen any discussion of how high the interest rates will be on these loans
The OECD chart at the top of the article shows how much more we'll have to pay compared to the Eurozone.
So why do UK Unionists insist on clinging to a small country like the UK, rather than embracing Europe?
Complain about this comment
Quote, Brian Taylor, "At Holyrood, Labour MSPs mostly take their cue from the PM and the Chancellor"
Well there must have been a breakdown in internal Labour communications because Alistair Darling has announced in a letter to Alex Salmond that this merger is to be reassessed.
Quote, Brian Taylor, "Behind the scenes, UK Government figures are suggesting that opposition to the merger may act against the interests of HBOS, perhaps even depressing the share price."
There must also be a breakdown in communications between the Labour party and the BBC because Alistair Darling has stated that HBOS could go it alone.
The truth is that Labour politicians are beginning to panic at the scale of job losses if this merger were to go ahead. Estimates put that at between 40,000 to 100,000.
There is no way that this merger can go ahead now without dire consequences for Labour.
Congratulations to the SNP for sticking up for Scottish jobs.
Complain about this comment
8. That Darling's constituency is also in Edinburgh has nothing to do with efforts to protect jobs.
No, it was ALL down to the SNP.
It's all so obvious now.
Complain about this comment
#9 I'm glad you agree!
Complain about this comment
All that ranting by the nationalists about Labour not looking after confidential records:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7700075.stm
Who runs our hospitals??
Can the SNP do anything right??
Complain about this comment
Oldnat#
I do believe that the figure of 12% has been bandied about, regarding the interest rates on the loans from you and me to the banks.
But you can be assured that 10% will be lost in the accounting as long as the mandarins’ in the treasury are involved.
Still it would appear that either the politicians or these same mandarins’ are now struggling with the possible illegality of their quick draw approach that they first mooted.
Interesting times, what with a by-election on Thursday, could be life will begin again around 2-30 am on Friday when the results are declared, and with no Alexander involvement they could be on time.
Complain about this comment
At the First Minister's Questions session in the Scottish legislature today tensions generated by the Glenrothes by-election were in evidence, as I saw for myself, having decided to witness this occasion on plasma screen in order to see if it served any identifiably useful purpose.
It may be, of course, that I am misinterpreting what I witnessed, but it seemed to me, for what it may be worth, that the essence of the proceedings could be summed up as follows. First of all the First Minister survived with ease, I thought, an ineptly mounted attempt at a vicious mauling by a scowling banshee from the Labour group. Do all the Labour people habitually writhe with wrath while foaming at the mouth? And I thought I was scary. Then, possibly seeking to appease the next one before she got too carried away, not that she actually showed much sign of doing so in the event, the FM seemed to offer her the prospect of a free bus pass, whatever that may be. Fortunately, the Tory leader had, evidently, more of a sense of humour than the glum-faced Labour stand-in, and did not writhe at all, although she too failed to knock the SNP leader off his stride. A spirited attempt, nonetheless. As for the Liberal Democrat's little effort, I was confused. What is liberal about objecting to freedom of speech among the senior clergy of the Roman Catholic church? And what has it got to do with the function of First Minister of Scotland, anyway? Here too the FM was triumphant, inevitably, essentially urging the Lib Dem, as it seemed to me, to reconsider whether an RC cardinal has, in fact, a right, even in the course of a by-election campaign, to express himself forcefully in public upon matters that are of cardinal importance to him.
Having concluded that the SNP section of the chamber was where a member of the legislature would have to sit to get away from the snapping snarlers and the bitter back-biters, I recalled with fondness my experience of witnessing the SNP campaign at Glenrothes. Observing from a discreet distance, so as not to cause undue anxiety or panic, judging, as I did, that even a modicum of due anxiety or panic resulting from my too conspicuous appearance on the scene might prove excessive in the prevailing climate of fear and alarm that is beginning to grip the population of much of the planet, I could not help noticing that there is a world of difference, as you say, between the Glenrothes by-election campaigning of the Labour candidate's most distinguished patrons (the UK state's supreme overlord and his over-protected consort) and that of the SNP candidate's most distinguished supporter, the First Minister of Scotland, who appears to be ready and willing to meet and greet anyone and everyone.
The SNP canvassing seems to be a genuine and forthright meeting of minds with the electors of the constitutuency, who are plainly becoming increasingly concerned about the questionable stewardship of the UK economy provided by the Labour UK overlords over the past decade and more, culminating as it is doing, as people are more and more coming to realize despite waves of Labour propaganda, in a profound and potentially enduring threat to livelihood and standard of living in Scotland. It has not gone un-noticed in Glenrothes that the Labour Party appears to be well and truly fearful of confronting the anger and disappointment of the people.
The Scottish National Party, on the other hand, calmly explains to all and sundry how, by reducing costs for individuals and businesses and continuing to do so within the limitations of the powers currently exercisable by the Scottish Government, it has done and is doing its level best to mitigate the adverse effects of UK government mismanagement of the UK economy. It also makes a point of expressing its view that the UK administration should use its much more extensive powers to reduce heating costs this winter by opposing excessive profiteering by providers of electricity and gas supply, as has been done outside the UK to the benefit of, not least, vulnerable members of other societies.
Stepping back from the contest, one notices that the chill of the northern hemisphere's winter is here already, as a dark season descends upon many of the economies of the planet. In this Cimmerian gloom the voting intentions of the electors of Glenrothes, notwithstanding the evident culpability of the Labour Party, may not be so predictable as were those of the electorate of Glasgow East. If one panics a flock of sheep, as you call those docile woolly-minded woolly creatures that one sees just about everywhere one goes, one may be sure that they will move suddenly and quickly. One cannot, however, seriously expect them to move smartly, in the sense of necessarily heading off in a direction which reason might indicate to be likely to present them with the greatest degree of safety and well-being. Or am I under-estimating the electorate of Glenrothes? We shall soon see.
What is clear is that the Glenrothes by-election is evidently taking place at a time when the Wheel of Fortune, as the ancients expressed it, has turned so as to present the electorate with no clear view of the road ahead. Will the unionist account be accepted according to which Scotland's potential future status as an independent state has become a thing of the past or will the electors see through the fog of electioneering to perceive with clarity that the wheel that turns will turn again and that there is nothing so inconstant as fortune?
The essence of sentient beings, in any case, consists in an innate capacity to make their own fortune. To do so independence of action is required, of course. One's hands must not be tied. For a country to control its destiny and overcome misfortune it clearly requires independence rather than fatalistic dependence on the goodwill and good offices of others. It also requires able leadership, which the SNP appears to stand ready to provide, and an indomitable spirit such as passionate devotees of the theatre will be familiar with in the works of a number of antique playwrights known collectively as Shakespeare:
"Though fortune's malice overthrow my state,
My mind exceeds the compass of her wheel."
(Henry VI, Pt. III, IV, iii)
Or are these lines reserved for the use of the supreme overlord?
Toodloothenoo.
Complain about this comment
#11
Ex-Pat, you've stumped me on this one. In what way is a failing of a hospital employee, the fault of the SNP Government?
Might as well blame them for the rotten weather we've been having lately while you're at it.
In any event, it's the NHS Trusts that are responsible for the day-to-day running of the Hospitals, who are (at least nominally) independant (although, not in the nationalist sense).
Complain about this comment
#11 Reluctant-Expat
"Who runs our hospitals??"
The Health Boards.
Complain about this comment
13 Greetings_Earthlings
Was this your pictured in Glenrothes?
If so, you had better watch those roof beams in the Parliament's Debating Chamber.
Complain about this comment
#14 Fit_Like
You right, me wrong. Trusts not Boards.
Wouldn't it be nice if some uber-UK Unionists could frankly admit that they were sometimes wrong? - like admitting that one doesn't add the Scottish deficit to our share of the UK deficit.
Complain about this comment
8. Minuend! "The truth is that Labour politicians are beginning to panic at the scale of job losses if this LTSB/HBOS merger were to go ahead. Estimates put that at between 40,000 to 100,000."
LOL! For crying out loud, which SNP leaflet did you pluck that estimate from, nationalist?
Not a mad and ridiculous exaggeration at all!
Complain about this comment
Could it be that the SNP oppose the merger between Lloyds TSB and HBOS in the hope that the only viable alternative - nationalisation of HBOS - is realised? An independent Scotland will surely need a central bank after all, and the mechanics of establishing one would no doubt be easier if there was a State-owned bank available (and one headquartered in Scotland at that). The only other option (unless the Euro was joined with undue haste) would be for the Bank of England to fulfil this role, something I think most SNP politicians would baulk at.
Complain about this comment
#8-Minuend.
A bit of searching found this from the Scotsman:
"HBOS employs 75,000 people and has 1,100 branches in the UK. Lloyds TSB has around 70,000 staff, with 1,900 branches.
The proposed boss of the new outfit, current Lloyds TSB chief executive Eric Daniels, said 10% of the combined group's costs would be saved. Of the 40,000 job loss estimate, he said: "Undoubtedly there will be some job losses. But I don't recognise that, it seems on the high side.""
These are the DIRECT potential losses; the indirect-losses would be from services and suppliers to the two banking groups. A fair estimate would be the lower of your two figures but the merged group would not necessarily maintain its strength, given the lack of confidence in either group.
You may be proved right in time.
Complain about this comment
20. No, he won't.
The 100,000 figure was for total possible losses across the entire UK financial industry NOT just HBOS and LTSB.
He's just another nationalist making shrill and ridiculous claims in the hope that someone, somewhere will be stupid enough to believe him.
Or maybe, he heard it from someone else which makes him.......
Complain about this comment
And now it looks like the merger is going ahead after all.
Hopefully Darling has secured minimal job losses.
For Salmond to call the City a bunch of spivs and THEN to go in search of co-operation from said spivs was unbelievably dimwitted of him.
Complain about this comment
#22
"And now it looks like the merger is going ahead after all."
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
Do you think the merger is a good thing?
Complain about this comment
#21- Reluct....
I don't remember rattling your cage, noisy one.
Manners maketh Man.
Complain about this comment
#16 oldnat
It wisnae me.
Complain about this comment
There is a neat little video on youtube,http://tinyurl.com/5b2yoz
Complain about this comment
Brian
It was the Scottish questions this week in Westminster that intrigued me. Mr Murphy did a delightful dance through all the planted questions designed to dish the SNP. Particularly sharp was his allegation that the Norwegian Foreign Minister disliked as "vacuous" the Honorable Mr Salmond's comments on Norway. The Norwegian letter to the Times however now shows Mr Murphy is talking nonsense and hurts an ally in the process. Thank goodness our First Minister shows more skill than the otiose Secretary Of Sate for Scotland. Strange how little reported was the Norwegian correction.
Complain about this comment
Dear dear ... heres me back from my days off (not much time for blogs on days off) and i go back through some posts and what do i see. Reluctant Numpty dissappeared for a wee while, then the first posts i see by him are rants about nats. Jees change the record min.
Complain about this comment
27. Where is the original report on this 'letter'?
I have looked at The Times' site and only found this:
'Stone of Destiny', the film Alex Salmond hoped would prompt a wave of nationalist euphoria ahead of his independence referendum, is on course to become one of Scotland’s biggest box office flops.
The £4m movie, which stars Robert Carlyle and Billy Boyd as members of the daring gang of idealistic young separatists who stole the stone from Westminster Abbey in the 1950s, has taken just £140,000 in the three weeks since it was released.
Only A Shot at Glory, Robert Duvall’s 2001 tableau of lower league Scottish football, was more of a turkey, drawing £36,000 in Scotland in its first three weeks.
It has fared worse than The Flying Scotsman, the 2006 biopic of Scots cyclist Graeme Obree considered by many in the Scottish film industry to be an unenviable nadir, which took £156,000 in its first three weeks.
In contrast Trainspotting pulled in more than £4m in 1996, Rob Roy, £2.5m in 1995 and Mrs Brown, £1.3m in 1997.
The film has been savaged by critics, with one describing it as a “feeble caper full of toe-curling national stereotypes, tourist board visuals and bluntly scripted platitudes”.
Murdo Fraser, deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives, has criticised Scottish Screen, the film body, for investing £500,000 of taxpayers’ money in “drivel”.
Complain about this comment
29. At 09:58am on 03 Nov 2008, Reluctant-Expat.
you have named all these films that the previouse scottish govermment invested in, not the present government.
me thinks that you have scored an own goal.
nulab waste 500,000 pounds on film flops.
Complain about this comment
Re 'Stone of Destiny':
Questions must surely be asked about why such a rare Scottish film, of this particular subject matter, and with its particular potential impact, received such a severely limited viewing run - surely something that was decreed in advance???
While other, infinitely disposable productions, have hung around interminably, my family and I were denied the much-anticipated opportunity to see 'Stone of Destiny' thanks to its bizarrely brief appearance at Scottish cinemas.
One thing entirely predictable in advance was the scathing and largely one-sided criticism of the film's political complexion:- agenda-driven critics using the charade of mock concern for the film’s "authenticity" to exercise themselves over how awfully "narrow-minded" or "anti-English" the characters and plot allegedly were.
Apart from the fact that such a reactionary response typifies a vacuous disregard for the times and context within which these bold deeds took place, the same shallow and blinkered ilk are dishing up the same knee-jerk response as we saw with Braveheart – attacking the film's every basic premise, as if it was wholly and entirely unacceptable to ever cast England as the 'villain of the piece', however tongue-in-cheek or factual the presentation.
Indeed, one wonders how a film which appeared for less than a week, if at all in most places - with typical showing times beginning after 10 o’clock at night!! - even manages to draw such hyped-up venom, were it not for the reserve of establishment prejudice pre-allocated to anything resembling Scottish nationalism.
The dubious representation, if not outright manipulation, of a film's box office takings, carries with it the crass implication that a film relating one of the most imaginative, daring and imaginative acts of Scottish patriotism, and 'Flying Scotsman', relating the extraordinary feats of cyclist Graeme Obree, carry less substance than 'Mamma Mia', an utterly tedious and superficial farce - and I make that point as a genuine fan of Abba!
Expat, your ingrained, agenda-driven hostility towards Scottish (political) dynamism of all forms has been monotonously flogged. It would be refreshing to hear from someone who can grasp the reverberating significance of that vital, historic deed of Christmas 1950 – and who might actually have seen the film!
Alba gu Bràth.
Complain about this comment
Brian:
I love the title of this blog; and, it is very true and accurate....and also, right to the point!!!
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS